I just reformatted an 8Gb USB drive as ext3. While as FAT32, it was reported as having well over 7Gb free (did not note the exact capacity). I reformatted with mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda1 Now it is reported (oh, this is with properties in Nautilus) as having 6.8Gb capacity (free space actually). Does this makes sense that ext3 has less available space than fat32?
on 9-25-2008 4:31 PM Robert Moskowitz spake the following:> I just reformatted an 8Gb USB drive as ext3. > > While as FAT32, it was reported as having well over 7Gb free (did not > note the exact capacity). > > I reformatted with mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda1 > > Now it is reported (oh, this is with properties in Nautilus) as having > 6.8Gb capacity (free space actually). > > Does this makes sense that ext3 has less available space than fat32?Ext3 reserves some space for root by default. I think it is like 5 or 10 %. That might be it. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 250 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080925/855af3fa/attachment-0001.sig>
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 19:40, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:>> Does this makes sense that ext3 has less available space than fat32? > > Ext3 reserves some space for root by default. I think it is like 5 or 10 %. > That might be it.5% by default. You can change it to 1% for your filesystem with this command: tune2fs -m 1 /dev/sda1 HTH, Filipe
On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 19:31 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:> I just reformatted an 8Gb USB drive as ext3. > > While as FAT32, it was reported as having well over 7Gb free (did not > note the exact capacity). > > I reformatted with mkfs.ext3 /dev/sda1 > > Now it is reported (oh, this is with properties in Nautilus) as having > 6.8Gb capacity (free space actually). > > Does this makes sense that ext3 has less available space than fat32?Yes, for the reasons the others posted. However, if you know the "profile" of what you'll have on there, a substantial amount of space can be recovered by 1) make sure you have large block size and 2) reducing the i-nodes allocated to suit. Do a little thinking before you make these adjustments. I've used these (along with the reducing root-reserved) for years w/o problems. But if you get too radical and/or miss the reality with your profile substantially, you'll be in a "rework" scenario.> <snip sig stuff>-- Bill